Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving.

> Using ext2 means that you're still exposed to fsck errors on boot after
> a crash, which doesn't lose anything but you have to go out of your way
> to verify you're not going to get stuck with your server down in that
> case.  The state of things on the performance side is nicely benchmarked
> at
> http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/joshua_drake/2008/04/is_that_performance_i_
> smell_ext2_vs_ext3_on_50_spindles_testing_for_postgresql/
>

fsck on a filesystem with 1 folder and  files is very
very fast.  Even if using WAL archiving, there won't be many
files/directories to check.  Fsck is not an issue if the partition is
exclusively for WAL.  You can even mount it direct, and avoid having the OS
cache those pages if you are using a caching raid controller.